PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3757] Re: incomplete abstraction vs. empiricism
Hi Colin (who wrote to Jim D.):
2. Apriorism
You don't think that systems of patriarchy and ethnic domination are
conservative, a matter of those in charge fighting to preserve their
powers
In this reductive sense
Mat wrote:
Patriarchy existed before capitalism, but capitalism transformed
patriarchy and resulted in a qualitatively very different form, what may
be called capitalist patriarchy. Patriarchy definitely plays an important
role in actually existing capitalism, of course the relation of
All points that Marx makes himself in Capital, vol. 3, chap. with title
something like: "Some Historical Facts Concerning Merchant Capital."
Colin writes:
A similar point could be made about this business of moving from
merchant to industrial capitalism. While this simplified historical
model
Hi Colin (who wrote to Jim D.):
2. Apriorism
You don't think that systems of patriarchy and ethnic domination are
conservative, a matter of those in charge fighting to preserve their
powers
In this reductive sense capitalism would qualify too -- wealth-holders
also fight to protect their
I wrote: Were does the _sole_ come from? not from me. I'd say "main," not
"sole,"
Colin writes:
I give up trying to pin down your notion of juggernaut capitalism [i.e.,
that capitalism is like a juggernaut].
I hope that means that you have stopped trying to put words into my mouth
-- such
To Yoshie:
While Marx, etc. spoke of capitalism revolutionizing the means
of production, I haven't heard any feminist argue that
patriarchy revolutionizes the means of reproduction or
anything else for that matter. :)
If you look at '70s-vintage radical feminism you'll find almost
Writes Paul:
Rob raises an interesting question. If, due to subcontracting
labour, wage labour becomes a minority of workers in developed
"capitalist" countries, does that mean they are no longer capitalist?
Colin writes:
Absolutely.
If it's not capitalist, what is it? what is _your_
Jim:
As I've said several times I see the real, empirical, world is a
combination of various social institutions -- including those of
patriarchy
and ethnic domination, along with capitalism. It's a "complex social
formation dominated by capitalism."
The mischief is in the word "dominated."
Hi Colin (who replied to Jim D.):
As I've said several times I see the real, empirical, world is a
combination of various social institutions -- including those of patriarchy
and ethnic domination, along with capitalism. It's a "complex social
formation dominated by capitalism."
The
Yoshie writes:
Well, does it suggest that "capitalism" is "the sole historical
agency *as a source of change*" if one describes a complex social
formation being "dominated" by capitalism? It appears to me that
there is no logical necessity leading from the latter to the former.
Probably
Hi Colin:
For an Althusserian
Marxist-Feminist approach -- which I believe is Jim's approach here
Let's let Jim say what his approach is. He dosen't sound very
Althusserian to me, but who knows what lies hidden!
No doubt I have not quite fathomed the heart of a man who works at a
Jesuit
I wrote:
As I've said several times I see the real, empirical, world is a
combination of various social institutions -- including those of
patriarchy and ethnic domination, along with capitalism. It's a "complex
social formation dominated by capitalism."
Colin writes:
The mischief is in the
For an Althusserian
Marxist-Feminist approach -- which I believe is Jim's approach here
Let's let Jim say what his approach is. He dosen't sound very
Althusserian to me, but who knows what lies hidden!
It's always interesting to listen in on a conversation about me that's in
the third
Hi again,
Speculates Paul, most intriguingly:
Indeed, early capital
accumulation (I argue until after the 1st WW) was from unequal
exchange between the commercial/transportation sector which
used its monopoly power to extract surplus from the primary
producer, not from appropropriated
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/26/00 05:37PM
To conclude that because the Enslavement played a big role in promoting the
development of capitalism (something no-one on pen-l denies, BTW) it
therefore was "necessary" is to assume that what's real is rational, that
what existed _had to be_ functional
I'm with Jim, Chas.
Slavery is undeniably part of the capitalist story, and probably had a lot
to do with the geographical dynamics, maybe even the genesis, of the
process. But, at a formal level, I'd have thought you could remove slavery
from capitalism and still have capitalism, whereas you
On 28 Oct 00, at 1:42, Rob Schaap wrote:
Could even be that's the direction in which we're going ... I know quite a
few people whose lives as employees are behind them. Now they're
'subcontractors' or 'small-business people'. Good news for a couple of 'em
- but just like being an
I wrote:
To conclude that because the Enslavement played a big role in promoting
the development of capitalism (something no-one on pen-l denies, BTW) it
therefore was "necessary" is to assume that what's real is rational, that
what existed _had to be_ functional for capitalism, and that there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 12:06PM
I wrote:
To conclude that because the Enslavement played a big role in promoting
the development of capitalism (something no-one on pen-l denies, BTW) it
therefore was "necessary" is to assume that what's real is rational, that
what existed _had to be_
Charles wrote:
As far as what Rob said, if there was wage-labor without accumulation,
it would not be capitalism.
During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
years (for the economy as a whole). Does that mean that there was no
capitalism? Accumulation is one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/27/00 02:20PM
Charles wrote:
As far as what Rob said, if there was wage-labor without accumulation,
it would not be capitalism.
During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
years (for the economy as a whole). Does that mean that there
The 'logic of capital accumulation' does not mean that profits or investment are
always positive. Crises are still part of the 'logic of capital accumulation.'
Jim:
During the 1930s in the US, there was little or no accumulation for a few
years (for the economy as a whole). Does that mean
Writes Paul:
Rob raises an interesting question. If, due to subcontracting
labour, wage labour becomes a minority of workers in developed
"capitalist" countries, does that mean they are no longer capitalist?
Absolutely.
Not to mention lots of subcontracting and putting-out in the 3W.
Not
[was: Re: [PEN-L:3526] Re: 20Re: Brenner, C. L. R. Ja mes, José
Carlos Mariátegui (was Re : Brenner Redux)]
Colin wrote:
[Mat] asks us not to shut our eyes to lived history and the fact that
the actual rise of industrial capitalism is closely linked with unfree
labor. As it is with
Why is the responsibility put on those who argue that the Enslave[ry] Industry
was a crucial part of the rise and development of capitalism as opposed to those
who want to deny this? I understand the methodological issues concerning history
being raised, but if we all agree that the only
At 03:19 PM 10/26/00 -0500, you wrote:
Why is the responsibility put on those who argue that the Enslave[ry]
Industry was a crucial part of the rise and development of capitalism as
opposed to those who want to deny this?
The only person in this debate who seems to deny the crucial role of
26 matches
Mail list logo
